All data-roads lead to Tokyo after EU’s thumbs up

The European Commission has given its nod of approval for data protection rules drawn up in Japan, effectively extending GDPR protections for European citizens to the Asian country.

On top of the current data protection regulations in Japan, an additional set of rules have been created adding safeguards to guarantee that data transferred from the EU will be subject to the same protection as European standards. The supplementary rules will be binding on Japanese companies importing data from the EU and enforceable by the Japanese regulator and courts.

“This adequacy decision creates the world’s largest area of safe data flows,” said Věra Jourová, Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality.

“Europeans’ data will benefit from high privacy standards when their data is transferred to Japan. Our companies will also benefit from a privileged access to a 127 million consumers’ market. Investing in privacy pays off; this arrangement will serve as an example for future partnerships in this key area and help setting global standards.”

Starting with the rules, new conditions will be set into play regarding the protection of data, the rights of European citizens to request further information on usage, as well as further requirements dictating what data can be transferred out of Japan to other nations. Protections have also been put in place with regard to how intelligence and law enforcement agencies can use or retain data, while a complaint-handling mechanism has also been introduced.

With these new rules the road to Tokyo is now open, allowing data to freely transfer between Japan and all members of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It’s a win for the bureaucrats which have been looking to develop deeper relationships, creating a trading bloc which can provide more competition for the likes of the US and China.

“This is the first time that such a recognition takes place under the GDPR and in a reciprocal manner. As of today, Japan has adopted an equivalent decision for data transferred to the EEA,” said Tanguy Van Overstraeten, TMT Partner and Global Head of Data Protection at law firm Linklaters.

“This major milestone puts both Japan and the EU in a unique position, strengthening the recently adopted Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the EU and Japan. The EPA will enter into effect on 1 February 2019, creating an open trading area covering over 600 million people and almost one third of the world’s GDP.”

For Japan enthusiasts, this announcement will come as great news, especially ahead of the EU-Japan trade agreement which is set to come into force next month. This tie up will create an open trading zone covering 635 million people and almost one third of the world’s total GDP, and the first ever bilateral framework agreement between the two parties.

As part of the new relationship the vast majority of the €1 billion of duties paid annually by EU companies exporting to Japan will be removed, as well as regulatory barriers inhibiting some trade, for example on car exports.

The European Commission might have its critics throughout the world, but this doesn’t look like anything aside from a good bit of business.

Lobbying on the up as Silicon Valley feels the regulatory squeeze

The internet giants have started filing their lobbying reports with the Center for Responsive Politics with records being shattered all over the place.

Each quarter US companies are legally required to disclose to Congress how much has been spend on political lobbying. Although the figures we are about to discuss are only for the US market, international players will certainly spend substantially more, it gives a good idea of the pressure which the internet players are facing. Governments are attempting to exert more control and Silicon Valley doesn’t like it.

Looking at the filings, having spent $4.9 million in the final three months, Google managed to total $21.2 million across the whole of 2018, a new high for the firm. This compares to $18.3 million spent across 2017.

Facebook is another which saw its lobby bill increase. In its latest filing, Facebook reported just over $3 million for Q4, and totalled almost $13 million across the year. In the Facebook case it should hardly be surprising to see a massive leap considering the scale and the depth of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which it has not been able to shake off.

More filings will be due over the next couple of days, the deadline for the fourth quarter period was January 22, though the database search tool is awful. What is worth noting is this is set to be the biggest year for internet lobby spend, however it is still nothing compared to the vast swathes which are spend elsewhere.

Lobby tableIn total, the internet industry might have spent a whopping $68.7 million on lobbying Washington over 2017 (2018 data is still not complete), but that is nothing compared to more mature industries. The Oil and Gas segment spent $126 million, while Insurance pumped $162 million into the lobbyists pockets, but the winner by a long was the pharmaceutical industry spending an eye-watering $279 million on lobbyists across the year (see image for full list).

As you can see, the ceiling has been set very high for lobbying and it will almost certainly increase over the next couple of years. All around the world governments and regulators are attempting to exert more control over the internet industry, and while the lobbying process isn’t necessarily attempting to block these new rules, the aim will be to get the best deal possible.

In comparison to other industries, the internet specifically and technology on the whole is relatively new. You have to take into account the internet as a mass market tool is only in its teen years and is demonstrating the same rebellious tendencies as young adults do. New ideas are being explored and boundaries are being pushed; with some breakthroughs rules do not exist, while the emergence of new business models means companies fall into the grey areas of regulation. The internet has been operating relatively untethered over the last few years, though this is changing.

2018 was a year where it all started to hit home. Countless data breaches demonstrated the digital world is one where security has not been nailed, while data privacy scandals have shown how dated some regulations are. It doesn’t help that Silicon Valley seems to operate behind a curtain which only the privileged few are allowed to peak behind, but even if this barrier was thrown open, only a small percentage of the world would actually understand what was going on or how to regulate it effectively.

GDPR was a step in the right direction in handing control of personal information back to the user, but this only applies to European citizens. Other countries, such as India, are learning from these regulations with the ambition of creating their own, but it is still very early days. The rules and regulations of the digital economy are being shaped and the internet giants will certainly want to influence proceedings to ensure they can still continue to hoover up profits in the manner which they have become accustomed to.

Looking at where money has been spent, data privacy and security concerns is a common theme with all the internet players who want to protect their standing in the sharing economy, though mobile location privacy issues is another shared concern. With data getting cheaper, more people will be connected all the time, opening the door for more location-based services and data collection. This could be big business for the internet giants, though it has been targeted by privacy advocates looking to curb the influence of Silicon Valley. Other issues have included tax reforms, antitrust and artificial intelligence.

So yes, a remarkable amount of cash is being spent by the likes of Google and Facebook at the moment, but this will only grow in time as regulators and legislators become more familiar with the business of the internet and, more importantly, how to govern it.

Nerves jangle as Aussies delay TPG/Vodafone merger decision

The Australian regulator has pushed back the deadline for its decision on whether Vodafone Australia and TPG can move forward with the proposed £8.2 billion merger.

While this far from a definite sign the merger will be blocked by the watchdog, the longer the evaluation process goes on for, the stronger the feelings of apprehension will get. If the Aussies were happy with the plans to create a convergence player, they would have said so, but perhaps the regulator is just making sure it effectively does its due diligence.

The tie up between the pair is supposed to be an effort to capitalise on convergence bounties and reinvigorate the competitive edge of the business. That said, last month the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) weighed into the equation raising concerns a merger would de-incentivise the market to offer low-cost services.

According to Reuters, the ACCC has extended its own self-imposed deadline to evaluate the merger by two weeks to April 11. If the watchdog cannot build a case to deny the merger by that point it probably never will be able to, but you have to wonder whether the additional time is being used to validate its position of opposition.

All regulators are supposed to take a balanced and impartial position when assessing these transactions, though its negative opinion last month suggests the agency is looking for a reason to deny as opposed to evaluating what information is on the table. Giving itself an extra couple of weeks will only compound this theory in the mind of sceptics.

To be even handed though, the consolidation argument is perfectly logical and completely absurd depending on who you are. There are benefits and negatives on both sides of the equation, irrelevant as to how passionately supporters and detractors preach to you. For all the arguments and evidence which are presented, a bucket-full of salt will probably be required.

Ericsson’s loss is a US operator’s gain once more as T-Mobile hires Ewaldsson

T-Mobile US wasted little time in snapping up former Ericsson lifer Ulf Ewaldsson after he came on the market, to head up its 5G efforts.

Ewaldsson’s most recent significant position at Ericsson was to head up its struggling Digital Services division. This time last year he became another casualty of Ericsson CEO Börje Ekholm’s apparent desire to refresh the executive team by getting rid of some dead wood. He does it gently, however, by moving them to the position of advisor to the CEO for a few months before finally casting them adrift.

Following the well trodden path taken by his former boss Hans Vestberg, Ewaldsson presumably needed little persuasion to escape the Swedish winter and move state-side, although he might not find Washington state to be much of an upgrade weather-wise. He will be reporting into TMUS CTO Neville Ray.

“We are thrilled to share the great news that Ulf is joining our team of amazing leaders at T-Mobile who continue to show the other guys what it takes to win in wireless,” said Ray. “Just look at what we’ve done with 4G wireless! We’ve been the fastest for 19 straight quarters – nearly 5 straight years… and we’re just getting started.

“Adding Ulf’s passion and track record for driving innovation to the Un-carrier mix is going to take us to the next level. Ulf has achieved so many firsts and truly supported the evolution of technology for telecommunications across the globe. Bringing him on board is a total win for T-Mobile and we couldn’t wait to share it! He is going to be the perfect addition to our consumer-first Un-carrier team to drive our 5G evolution strategy!”

Have you noticed how similar to Trump’s tweets the canned quotes from TMUS are? Anyway Ewaldsson, does have good tech pedigree, having been Ericsson’s group CTO for five years before being handed the Digital Services poisoned chalice, so he should be a good person to be running the 5G side of things.

Ren’s roadshow continues as Huawei warns of job cuts

Huawei Founder Ren Zhengfei has prepped his employees with a warning of ‘hardship’ and job cuts in the future.

In an email to employees, seen by the Financial Times, Ren has laid out an ominous prediction for the firm. The eras of 3G and 4G came too easily for the business and the extraordinary success which has fuelled Huawei’s domination over the last few years should not be expected as the firm enters the 5G frenzy.

“In the coming years, the overall situation will probably not be as bright as imagined, we have to prepare for times of hardship,” Ren said in the email.

Huawei confirmed to Telecoms.com the email was sent out to employees, though stressed that this is not necessarily new rhetoric from the management team. Over the last couple of months, Ren has been open with employees over the challenges in the future, while this email should be seen as a further step in this communication to re-iterate market conditions will make life for Huawei more difficult that it has become accustomed to.

Having started life in 1988, Huawei’s growth over the last two decades has been astronomical. Passing revenues of $1 billion roughly 20 years ago, the firm exceeded $100 billion in 2018, with the Consumer business group rumoured to have overtaken the Carrier business group as the biggest. Of course, dominance in the 4G era created this position of comfort to allow the Consumer business group to launch its assault on the global smartphone market.

Although this is one of the few examples of Ren being directly quoted in the media, the content of the email should hardly come as a surprise considering trends over the last couple of months.

“5G cannot possibly become as easy as 4G,” said Ren. “Maybe a mine will go off here and there. And even if there won’t be a big explosion all over the place, we will still need to feed 180,000 staff. Wages, salaries and dividends amount to over (US) $30 billion a year.”

Specific numbers have not been detailed, though Ren seems to be readying the troops for what could be a difficult few years fighting against currently unvalidated accusations and suggestions of nefarious behaviour.

Along with the US, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, Germany looks to be the next country to block the commercial intentions of Huawei. The Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has previously stated it would not ban any companies from participating in the 5G frenzy without proof, though there are other factors to consider. Deutsche Telekom certainly wants to stay on the good-side of the US with a certain merger still not greenlit.

This is certainly not going to be the end for Huawei, but this communication from Ren confirms one thing to the world; Huawei truly realises how serious this situation has become and commercial contracts will be much more difficult to win in the future.

Privacy champion Max Schrems is back with another lawsuit

The man who is largely credited with the downfall of Safe Harbour has re-emerged from the shadows to take eight of the internet giants to court over GDPR violations.

As user privacy increasingly seems to be an alien concept to Silicon Valley and the other internet players, Austrian data privacy champion Max Schrems has jumped into the limelight once again. This time he is challenged eight internet companies and their data privacy practices, suggesting they are violating Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Through a filing with the Austrian Data Protection Authority, by Schrem’s non-profit NOYB, the complaints focus on the ‘right to access’ enshrined in Article 15 GDPR and Article 8(2) of the Chart of Fundamental Rights. Amazon, Apple, DAZN, Filmmit, Netflix, Sound Cloud, Spotify and YouTube are on the receiving end of the lawsuit, with the potential penalties ranging from €20 million through to €8 billion.

“Many services set up automated systems to respond to access requests, but they often don’t even remotely provide the data that every user has a right to,” said Schrems. “In most cases, users only got the raw data, but, for example, no information about who this data was shared with. This leads to structural violations of users’ rights, as these systems are built to withhold the relevant information.”

GDPR is supposed to hand control of personal data back to said individual. Its aim is to hold the digital society accountable to their actions and provide a certain level of justification for holding onto, and potentially monetizing, an individual’s personal information. Several clauses are also aimed at transparency to ensure the user is fully informed, or at least offering the user the opportunity to be, about how these software and services providers commercialise data.

In addition to what raw data is being stored, individuals do now also have the right to know where this data was sourced, the recipients and also the purpose. This is where a few of the complaints are focusing specifically, as this is the information which was absent from some of the responses.

If privacy is an alien concept, then transparency is a dirty, inconceivable word to the internet players. It seems former habits have been hard to shake.

NOYB Snip

As you can see from the table above, Schrems has tested out how some of the internet players have reacted to the introduction of GDPR. Progress has been made, except in the case of Sound Cloud and DAZN, but that is irrelevant. The introduction of GDPR on May 25 2018 was not the starting line to gradually move yourself through to compliance, day one was a hard introduction of the rules. There are some circumstances where companies can avoid penalties, but these are scenarios where non-compliance would be seen as out of the control of the company, or best efforts have been made.

This is where these firms might find themselves in a bit of hot water. An automated response which offers up some information but not all which is required through the new regulation should not be considered good enough. The pair ignoring the requests completely should be very worried about the repercussions. And finally, the Austrian regulator will also have to decide whether four weeks is an appropriate response time or too long. None of these firms are in a safe place right now.

Another interesting aspect will be the readability of the data. In the complaint, Schrems notes the raw data was provided in what would be considered cryptic form for the general public. Users would not be able to read the data therefore it is not being made accessible by the company. Whether this is taken as a violation of GDPR remains to be seen, though Austria could set precedent.

Many of the internet giants have resisted the calls from data privacy advocates and governments around the world, but GDPR is supposed to be a stick to keep the segment in line. These are companies which will want to avoid giving too many details away as the power and depth of the data sharing economy has the potential to spook large swathes of the general public. Too much light shed on data processing and exchanging practices would also offer more ammunition to the blood-thirsty politicians, many of whom are on a PR crusade to make heads roll.

Ultimately this will give us a good indication as to how sharp European regulators’ teeth actually are. In passing GDPR, the European Commission has offered a stick to the pro-privacy regulators, but how hard they swing it remains to be seen. The dreaded ‘up to’ phrase is present when looking at potential fines, so let’s see whether these regulations have the stones to dish out appropriate punishments.

Nordic winter hits hard as Ericsson loses exec and Nokia cuts more jobs

Swedish Ericsson and Finnish Nokia both announced they’re losing people as the endless winter nights take their toll.

Ericsson’s SVP, Chief Marketing and Communications Officer and Head of Marketing and Corporate Relations, Helena Norrman, is calling it a day after 21 years at the company, with ten of those on the executive team. She’ll be hanging around for a quarter or two, to keep the transition smooth and presumably have a hand in finding her replacement.

“Helena has been instrumental in reshaping and modernizing Ericsson’s global marketing and communications strategy and function,” said Ericsson CEO Börje Ekholm. “With a deep understanding of the company’s priorities she has helped Ericsson navigate through periods of both massive change and considerable challenges. Helena has been a valued member of the Executive Team and I wish her all the best in her future ventures.”

On a personal note, I got a chance to hang out with Helena when I was over in Stockholm last summer and found her to be smart and tough, but at the same time friendly and approachable, in other words great at her job. I’m sad to see you go Helena, but wish you all the best with your next thing. Here were are getting the beers in, on a boat in Stockholm, with Helena on the right.

Ericsson tour boat beers

Over in Helsinki Nokia is trimming another 350 Finnish employees in a further dive to cut costs, as previously reported by Light Reading. “Our industry is one where a constant focus on costs is vital and the planned transformation measures are essential to secure Nokia´s long-term competitiveness,” said Tommi Uitto, Nokia’s Country Manager in Finland. “Such decisions are not easy, but we will do our utmost to support our personnel during the change process.”

“Nokia has made good progress in executing on its strategy, with momentum in providing high-performance end-to-end networks, targeting new enterprise segments and creating a standalone software business. Our early progress in 5G is strong and we continue to increase our investment in this critical technology.

“We will redouble our efforts to ensure that Nokia’s disciplined operating model remains a source of competitive advantage for us, and that we maintain our position as the industry leader in cost management, productivity and efficiency. Finland will continue to be an important country for Nokia to achieve these goals. To this end, we are also currently recruiting into key new technologies in all our campuses in Finland.”

On one hand any job loss announcement sends out the message that the company is struggling to make a profit. But as Uitto noted, this sort of thing is not uncommon among kit vendors and Ericsson has been on a massive downsizing of its own, so these 350 redundancies need to be kept in perspective. Meanwhile Norrman’s departure is a loss to Ericsson, but maybe it will take this opportunity to get someone in from the outside with a different perspective on the company.

As expected TIM delays shareholder meeting and Vivendi moans

The TIM board met today to discuss Vivendi’s request for a shareholder meeting and decided it can wait until the end of March.

This outcome had been widely expected and Vivendi already had its public moan written in advance. “Vivendi deplores the time-wasting tactics used by the Elliott Board members of Telecom Italia (TIM) who have decided to delay until March 29 the holding of a Shareholders’ Meeting, contrary to the company’s by-laws and the Italian Civil Code,” thundered the Vivendi release.

Just to remind you, ten out of the 15 TIM board members were proposed by Elliott and five by Vivendi. There was a time when the opposite was true and Vivendi regards that time with deep longing. That’s why it wants another vote in which it hopes to regain control of the board. If it ever is successful in that respect it will, of course, be guilty of none of the self-interested behaviour it accuses Elliot of.

“These time-wasting tactics are negatively impacting TIM’s financial results every day, as is sadly reflected by the more than 40% drop in the share price since May 4, 2018,” persisted Vivendi. “These tactics constitute a genuine denial of shareholder democracy and run counter to the most basic and fundamental principles of good corporate governance.”

Here’s what TIM announced following the meeting:

In taking this decision by a majority vote, the Board of Directors considered the motivations the shareholder has given for making this request, and the company’s interest in a (single) meeting to discuss the various issues the shareholders are called to resolve on, so as to:

- facilitate the completion of the processes to approve and disclose the strategic plan, the related impairment test on goodwill and hence the financial statements, and thus

- ensure that the shareholders have a proper and adequate information set,

while also promoting the greatest possible participation in a shareholders’ meeting, in which there is likely to be a substantial confrontation on what the industrial future of the Company is to be and on the people its management should be entrusted to.

There was plenty more but you get the gist. The Elliott-dominated TIM board has to grant Vivendi’s request eventually but it doesn’t see any reason why it should be in any hurry about it. The nature of corporate shenanigans means it can’t just say “we can’t be bothered for now” so it needs to give the decision a veneer of due process. There doesn’t seem to be much Vivendi can do about it, however, so things may go quiet on this story for another couple of months.

Vivendi war with Elliott over TIM set to escalate

Ahead of a TIM board meeting today Vivendi and TIM Chairman Fulvio Conti have been publicly bitching at each other.

An unnamed Vivendi spokesperson got in touch with the Sunday Times to brief against Conti yesterday, accusing him of failing to represent all shareholders. Vivendi is a 24% shareholder in TIM and has been upset ever since it lost control of the board to activist investor Elliott last year and has consistently questioned Conti’s impartiality.

Vivendi wants another vote on the composition of the TIM board, with the apparent aim of restoring its control. TIM has been slow to grant this request, prompting Vivendi to accuse Conti of carry out ‘absurd time-wasting tactics’. “The Chairman [of Vivendi, presumably] feels he [Conti, presumably] no longer represents Telecom’s shareholders as a whole and is therefore trying to avoid a democratic vote,” the mystery Vivendi spokesperson is quoted as saying in the ST piece.

In possible anticipation of the ST piece TIM issued a rambling statement from Conti on late on Friday that he may have dictated after his first grappa of the evening. Here it is in full.

Vivendi is always able to surprise me, ascribing me powers I do not have. Truth is, I am Chairman of a Board of Directors that has a significant presence of Vivendi-appointed members (including the Vivendi CEO), along with nine members – including me – with renowned standing that have complete autonomy of judgement.  I also remind that the Vivendi-appointed Directors have, in the past, had the opportunity to hear me during Board meetings asking them not to discuss TIM matters when markets are open. Evidently, I was not clear enough.

On the specific topic, I work in the interest of all shareholders, and by respecting the shareholder with 24% I cannot neglect to take into account the remaining 76%. If Vivendi has at heart the rules of a democratic vote, it will have to await the convening of the shareholders meeting which will be deliberated by the next Board of Directors on January 14, and this shall happen in complete autonomy, respecting the Civil Code which provides for the convening of an Assembly within 30 days of the request. This call date must take into account the interests of shareholders and the interests of the company. I inform the gentlemen at Vivendi that the civil code, in contrast to what the Vivendi spokesperson said, does not provide for a specific time limit to convene the shareholders meeting, but entrusts the Board of Directors to determine a correct date to hold it appropriate for all the interests at play.

With regard to the management issue, I have not personally orchestrated anything, but acknowledged the will of the majority of the Board of Directors whose vote expresses its loss of confidence in the former CEO Amos Genish. More than the management powers that Vivendi’s spokesman attributes me, I would like to draw attention to the years in which Vivendi has led TIM compared to my full 4 days.

While all this gives telecoms hacks something to write about on a Monday morning, these public statements are aimed squarely at TIM shareholders, who Vivendi wants to push for this new vote. An announcement is expected from TIM later today and Telecoms.com understands the Telecom Italia board will look to delay a vote around the election of new board members. This will lead to further public moaning from Vivendi, so watch this space.

InterDigital says Huawei is setting a dangerous precedent with patent lawsuit

Huawei has filed a lawsuit challenging the royalties it’s charged, but InterDigital CEO thinks the saga could have a much more damaging and wide-ranging impact on the industry.

Lawsuits in the telco industry are not uncommon, while they are pretty much part of the daily routine for anyone who deals with patents. According to InterDigital CEO Bill Merritt, the dispute is not the problem, it’s the way that Huawei is hoping to get a resolution, heading towards localised judicial systems as opposed to international, and standardised, arbitration.

“Standards have done a great job at breaking down national walls, creating a single playing field, and we think pricing should be the same,” said Merritt.

As it stands, Huawei has filed a lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (January 2) accusing InterDigital of not licensing patents on fair and non-discriminatory terms. The lawsuit follows the expiration of a prior licensing agreement (December 31) with the pair not able to come to an agreement on future terms.

Long story short, Merritt pointed out Huawei wants to pay less for the patents. It’s a simple dispute, based on the success of Huawei smartphones and devices over the last year or so. As Huawei is shipping more units, it feels it should be offered a more competitive rate due to economies of scale. InterDigital however, feels it is offering a fair and reasonable price. The court case will decide royalty payments for the next four years (2019-23).

From Merritt’s perspective, the issue is not the dispute but the lawsuit itself. In the past, with Huawei and other customers, InterDigital has chosen to go down the route of arbitration, an option which Merritt feels is best in this situation as well. In most arbitration cases, each party selects a professional arbitrator, before the pair jointly select a third independent one. The idea is that the trio would assess all the information in the contract, look at market precedent as well as future developments, to decide a competitive and reasonable price for the transaction. It’s (in theory) an independent and neutral way to resolve conflict.

In this case, arbitration was offered as a possible resolution, but Huawei declined, instead electing to head to the regional court. This is where the danger lies; the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court is a localised institution which has influence in China. The risk is regionalised rate setting which would cause chaos considering how many jurisdictions there are around the world.

To compound the issue of regionalised rate setting, not only are you likely to have varied approaches and opinions, an international supply chain does not lend itself well to this scenario. The majority of devices and products which are sold today are manufactured in a variety of different countries and regions; the economy has been globalised. Merritt said if you are having to factor in several different regionalised rates for production of devices, the whole supply chain could turn into a disaster.

“The number of disputes could easily be reduced if parties committed to arbitration,” said Merritt.

Unfortunately for Merritt and InterDigital, the two technology powerhouses of the world are increasingly promoting more nationalised agendas and policies which encourage isolationist thinking. It seems we can’t go a day without referring to the trade conflict between the US and China, but the idea of regionalised rate setting, which this lawsuit encourages, is another step away from the international ecosystem, the healthiest option for a profitable and sustainable telecommunications industry.

This is a case which might be worth keeping an eye on over the coming months, it might just lead the patent segment down a worrying and complicated red-tape maze of regionalised price setting.